The Hobbit (film series) - Page 14

I saw it for the first time last weekend in 2D 48fps frame rate. I really enjoyed it. I agree with the sentiment that others have brought up regarding the massive amounts of CGI that is taking over movies these days. I appreciated the time and effort put into the costumes and make-up in the LOTR movies, and felt like it made it more gritty and real. The Hobbit is following suit with most other movies of the fantasy/sci-fi realm, so you almost start having trouble figuring out how much of the movie is real vs. computer generated. All that said, the movie is beautifully made, and I didn't find the high frame rate to be problematic at all. I just felt like I was watching a movie in Blue-ray.

Boring, dreadfully paced. I normally enjoy fantasy stuff and liked the book but for the life of me I wasn't captivated at all, not for a minute. Thank god I watched it before Django Unchained and not afterwards for else it would've destroyed all the enjoyment Django Unchained evoked.
3D, HFR.

I thought it was great. The 'slow' parts were wonderful mostly due to great acting and a solid script. I actually thought the action scenes were the worst part of the movie -- mostly due to the same ol' gimmick from LOTR (character about to die, suddenly saved by another). The final fight was rather silly (lifetime grudge, sends underling for killing blow) and the presence of the eagles even moreso (why not just fly them all the way there?).

By the way, did anyone else think the whole Goblin King scene was very out of place, especially the end of it? Seemed more like a remnant from Guillermo del Toro's work than part of Jackson's movie.

Also, I thought Richard Armitrage sucked. I'm convinced Hollywood people (or at least critics) no longer know what good acting is. The final scene was delivered completely incorrectly -- he said his lines like he was prepping for the punchline of a joke rather than humbly apologizing for his mistake.

I thought it was great. The 'slow' parts were wonderful mostly due to great acting and a solid script. I actually thought the action scenes were the worst part of the movie -- mostly due to the same ol' gimmick from LOTR (character about to die, suddenly saved by another). The final fight was rather silly (lifetime grudge, sends underling for killing blow) and the presence of the eagles even moreso (why not just fly them all the way there?).

By the way, did anyone else think the whole Goblin King scene was very out of place, especially the end of it? Seemed more like a remnant from Guillermo del Toro's work than part of Jackson's movie.

Also, I thought Richard Armitrage sucked. I'm convinced Hollywood people (or at least critics) no longer know what good acting is. The final scene was delivered completely incorrectly -- he said his lines like he was prepping for the punchline of a joke rather than humbly apologizing for his mistake.

Even if Jackson were going for maximum accuracy with the book (he wasn't, obviously) that's still not a real reason for it to be handled as it was in the film which was, as I said, silly.

You do have to realize that you sound rediculous. The Hobbit was published in 1937... It is what it is, and no one can undo that. It's a fantastic book, and Tolkein wrote it the way he wanted it. If the eagles flew the dwarves all the way to the Lonely Mountain then half of the adventure in the story wouldn't exist. Jackson may not have "maximum" accuracy as you say, but eliminating half of the book isn't exactly artistic liberty.

I don't think he's arguing for a change in plot, just for it to not have been so built up so that all hope is lost and then suddenly not only do they save the day, they also completely pwn the orcs and everything.

Peter Jackson did the same thing with Return of the King. Rather than having the ghost kings just tip the balance towards the good guys, they came in and completely destroyed the Mordor army.

It de-values the whole ordeal that they've previously been through if something else is able to conquer it so easily.

You do have to realize that you sound rediculous. The Hobbit was published in 1937... It is what it is, and no one can undo that. It's a fantastic book, and Tolkein wrote it the way he wanted it. If the eagles flew the dwarves all the way to the Lonely Mountain then half of the adventure in the story wouldn't exist. Jackson may not have "maximum" accuracy as you say, but eliminating half of the book isn't exactly artistic liberty.

I don't understand the concept that what happens in the book in narrative form must necessarily be translated directly into the film. I mean, that is precisely what I already wrote and exactly what you responded to. So, in case you still don't understand, I'll repeat again: even if Jackson wanted 100% verisimilitude the difference in formats allows a difference in interpretation. That is, in the book an omniscient narrator describes what happens. In the film there is no such narrator so the occurrences in the book need to be translated to film using a different method. I don't like the method Jackson chose.

This is pretty basic stuff here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Argentino

I'm sure most of you have seen this, but thought it was especially poignant here

Not really because the reason it couldn't be done was obvious in LOTR. In The Hobbit there is no such reason. That's precisely why I count it as a fault of the movie.

Anyway, I read the book when I was young so re-read the part about the eagles just to entertain the notion that the film should be the book with visuals. Even if you believe that (I personally don't care), the eagles in the film don't communicate whereas in the book they explain their motives. In the film since the eagles don't talk it seems odd that they would just drop the dwarfs off on some craggy peak in the middle of nowhere -- which was Jackson's interpretation and which was what I find fault with.Edited by why - 1/29/13 at 2:08am

why is consistently one of the stupidest posters on SF. Those of you trying to reason with him are a close second.

Sometimes I can be a glutton for punishment I guess. If people are just trolling, I will ignore them, but there seems to be a genuine difference in thought process here which I can't figure out. Which is why I keep going, for better or worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by why

I don't understand the concept that what happens in the book in narrative form must necessarily be translated directly into the film. I mean, that is precisely what I already wrote and exactly what you responded to. So, in case you still don't understand, I'll repeat again: even if Jackson wanted 100% verisimilitude the difference in formats allows a difference in interpretation. That is, in the book an omniscient narrator describes what happens. In the film there is no such narrator so the occurrences in the book need to be translated to film using a different method. I don't like the method Jackson chose.

This is pretty basic stuff here.
Not really because the reason it couldn't be done was obvious in LOTR. In The Hobbit there is no such reason. That's precisely why I count it as a fault of the movie.

Anyway, I read the book when I was young so re-read the part about the eagles just to entertain the notion that the film should be the book with visuals. Even if you believe that (I personally don't care), the eagles in the film don't communicate whereas in the book they explain their motives. In the film since the eagles don't talk it seems odd that they would just drop the dwarfs off on some craggy peak in the middle of nowhere -- which was Jackson's interpretation and which was what I find fault with.

I fail to see how an omniscient narrator in the book suddenly overrides the the point at hand. You are correct that there is a translation process that takes place when turning a book into a movie. Some do it well and others don't. I guess that's why there is an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. Jackson may not necessarily win that award. However, you are positing that because the eagles can talk in the book, and therefore can explain why they aren't flying the dwarves all the way to the Lonely Mountain, then it is ok in the book. Since they don't explain themselves in the movie, the entire rest of the adventure is nullified? I think Jackson is assuming that people are somewhat familiar with the book's plot, and if they don't get it, they are free to run to their local bookstore or library and look up the source. Talking animals in books is easy to pull off, but talking animals in an epic film that transcends child and adult interests is more of a risky venture. The same risk exists for songs in my opinion, and I was happy that they were handled well. I think he probably left off the talking to help eliminate the risk of a cheesy presentation. Smaug (we assume) will talk, because it seems nearly impossible that he could be remotely similar to his book character without engaging in his conversation with Bilbo, and I am crossing my fingers that it is accomplished well. For me, not having all of the animals talk helps ensure that the film stays true to it's more "grown-up" nature. It isn't The Chronicles of Narnia, which I really enjoy, but it has a decidedly more childish feel.

I think that El Argentino's video that he posted actually is the exact same thing that you are claiming should have happened in the Hobbit. You say that it is obvious that it couldn't be done in LOTR, but I have to disagree. When it comes down to it, in epic adventures in book or film, there is always an easy way and a hard way to accomplish the end. It is precisely the "road less traveled" that makes it an epic and that is what makes it captivating and motivating. I think you are over analyzing it for weaknesses.